"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." Orwell

"Men are so simple of mind and so dominated by immediate needs that the deceitful man can easily find those ready to be deceived."
Machiavelli

"The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.." H.L. Mencken

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Schadenfreude

Shamelessly, I've been enjoying the circular firing squad among conservatives of late, regarding "epistemic closure." It's been a beautiful thing, mainly because it's exactly what I've been saying for years; at its core, it's the very reason for this blog. Lately, even the newspaper of record has noticed. (And it's taken some lumps over the term. To which I say, hey, let's not lose sight of the doughnut for the hole. This is fun.)

First used in this context by Julian Sanchez of the libertarian Cato Institute, the phrase “epistemic closure” has been ricocheting among conservative publications and blogs as a high-toned abbreviation for ideological intolerance and misinformation.

Conservative media, Mr. Sanchez wrote at juliansanchez.com — referring to outlets like Fox News and National Review and to talk-show stars like Rush Limbaugh, Mark R. Levin and Glenn Beck — have “become worryingly untethered from reality as the impetus to satisfy the demand for red meat overtakes any motivation to report accurately.”

Oh my. And there's way more.

Soon conservatives across the board jumped into the debate. Jim Manzi, a contributing editor at National Review, wrote that Mr. Levin’s best seller, “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto” (Threshold Editions) was “awful,” and called the section on global warming a case for “willful ignorance,” and “an almost perfect example of epistemic closure.” Megan McArdle, an editor at The Atlantic, conceded that “conservatives are often voluntarily putting themselves in the same cocoon.”

Bruce Bartlett, a veteran of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush’s administrations, wrote that in the last few years, “epistemic closure” had become much worse among “the intelligentsia of the conservative movement.” He later added that the cream of the conservative research institutes, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, had gone from presenting informed policy analyses to pumping out propaganda.

And those are just the first salvos. Excuse me while I have a blogasm.

Conservative defenders dismissed the complaints. At National Review, Mr. Levin replied that “Manzi is guilty of ‘epistemic one-sidededness’,” if not “lunacy” and “wingnuttery.” Many of Mr. Manzi’s colleagues attacked him for his takedown of Mr. Levin.

How great! On the one hand, these guys are taking each other apart. They're addressing the point I've been making seemingly forever: the Republican Party, along with its RWS™ and media mouthpiece, have devolved into mere propagandizing based on lies, rejecting all meaningful discourse and any attempt at real contributions to the debates over our most pressing problems. They've validating my whole premise, as I shiver ecstatically. (And while the body politic suffers immensely.)

On the other hand -- and it's, I admit, way too much for which to hope -- it raises, if ever so slightly, the possibility (far off and small as it might be) that there could be some sort of awakening on the right. We could -- and I realize this is like believing in flushes -- get back to (yes, it's pollyannish in extremis) a two-party system where both are intellectually strong and working from different positions toward (well, one can dream, can't one?) the same goal, with serious discussions and mutual (I tread here on shells of eggs spread upon the thinnest of ice) respect. All it would take is a little more back and forth like the above-referenced fracas, a bit of self-directed reflection, and.... and.... well... okay... I know I'm reaching here, because it'd take... something... like... yes...

2 comments:

Sid, don't run with that pointy head of yours, you could put an eye out..CATO institute?(Wasn't he the Green Lantern's sidekick?) National Review? "Newspaper of Record"? who even reads Newspapers anymore? I think I looked at a USA today once in the 90's before AlGore invented the Internets...I get my news the New-Fangled Way, Drudge, DeutscheWelle, and if I want to see what John Edwards is up to theres the National Enquirer..(Did you here? He's makin the Bar Scene in Chapel Hill, and effin Rielle when his dying Wife's out of town)Bet you didn't here THAT on "All Liberal Things Considered"and we do have a 2 party system, you'll see in November,

I actually felt sorry for McCain during the '08 campaign. Having to get up every morning and spend the day meeting-and-greeting the kind of ignoramuses, bigots and nutcases who came to his rallies must have been a living nightmare. But Obama chased most of the out-and-out racists from the Dems, and they plus their ditto-head friends (along with Palin, who was totally in her element) managed to creep out anyone with an ounce of dignity, intellectual integrity, respect for his or her country, etc.

(Drackman--you do realize that insulting everyone who disagrees with you instead of making your case, blathering about politicians' sex lives and never, ever having anything else to say rather proves Dr. Schwab's point?)

For The Sake of My Sanity

Some will know me from my other blog, "Surgeonsblog." Of late I've given over to frothing at the mouth as the world descends into stupidity, and our politics and our citizens seem, in numbers enough to be meaningful, unable to see it. So for now I'm leaving surgery writing behind, if for no other reason than to defuse and diffuse my unrelenting sense of doom, and with no expectation of making a difference. These are things that, to me, are obvious. Except that, apparently, they aren't.

RWS™

RWS™: For those who drop by here in the middle, and wonder what it means: it's my shorthand for Right Wing Screamers, which includes such a long list it's tiresome to type it. (I distinguish these blowhards from thoughtful conservatives, of whom I sort of take it on faith that there must still be some.) You know who I mean: Palin, Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Breitbart (RIP), Malkin, Savage, Levin, Ingraham, Doocey (more of a drooler than a screamer), Hewitt, Goldberg, Gingrich, Kristol, Scarborough (+/-), Bachmann, Inhofe, Bond, Broun, Boehner, Kelley, Santorum, Cain. To name but a few. Behold them in their unrepentant disregard for reality: the RWS™